It's quite possible this will work for a while, but shortly after complaints start coming in ("Hey, how'd THAT guy get PORN on his computer up here!?!?! I can't get MY porn!! I WANT MY PORN!!!", or some such nonsense) they'll start filtering for protocols, not just ports or URLs.
No SSH protocol, not even if it's tunneled in something else.
They might allow secure connections to only certain websites, e.g. the airlines, the Sky Mall, etc.
It's their network, and they're going to work hard to protect themselves and their image.
OK, so first guy says something inflammatory, gives no facts to support his point.
Second guy asks for elaboration.
Due to its nature (contains no facts, only inflammatory remarks), he's already proven he CAN'T elaborate.
My post was simply telling guy #2 that the guy CAN'T back up his statements, because there's simply no proof to be given: how does one prove an opinion?
Funny how you responded to what I said, but not to what the other guy said about being the reason the country is fucked up.
He offered no proof to support his conclusions. Why didn't you say anything about his comment? Is it because you think his conclusions are correct, based on no provided evidence in his statement?
Only wrongdoers demand secrecy. This is the most idiotic thing I've heard today, although admittedly it's only a little before lunch.
How do you think product development is done? By telling your competition what you're going to do by when?
Should we have developed the nuclear bomb out in the open, so that the Germans could have done it at the same time and used it on Britain, Russia and the U.S.?
What makes it worse is that Microsoft knows full well that this data is false, and still uses this in its FUD attacks against Linux/Open Source.
Well... maybe. It's quite possible that the two sub-organizations aren't communicating very well. If that's the case, then they need to do something about it.
I don't really care for Microsoft, neither the company nor their software. But let's not get all paranoid and just jump to the conclusion that they're deliberately trying to mislead us.
Oh, crap, what the hell am I saying?
Of COURSE they're lying to us! Of course they know that they are deliberately misleading people with false statistics because they know that their business model is under attack!
Sorry about that, kids. We now return you to your regular broadcast.
No, I don't, I work for a private company that makes our own embedded hardware and software. I'm as anti-Micro$oft as you can get.
Buying one copy of a piece of software and then installing it on several machines is stealing. It's not copyright infringement. It's stealing.
To whatever idiot made the RIAA comment: I thikn they're wrong too. If you buy a piece of music, you should be able to do whatever the hell you want with it for YOURSELF. (Movies, too.) But making 100 copies of a CD and giving it to your friends is wrong, also.
Some of you folks need to get it out of your heads that if technology makes something possible, well, then, it must be ok to do it! Nope, life doesn't work that way.
I am serious. School districts who are stealing software are stealing.
As for Ernie Ball, ignorance got him. I didn't notice if the article mentioned who turned him in, but that's not important for this discussion.
I'm glad there's someone to make them legal.
As for showing them the finger, if they have probable cause, they'll come with the law. Showing them the finger may get them away long enough that you can get them away, but they'll be back with a warrant quicker than you can buy & install legal copies.
You're legally entitled to leave without ANY notice. You can walk into your boss's office, say "I'm outta here as of right now!" and be done with it. All they owe you for is any work you have done since the last pay period. No more, no less. And you don't "owe" them ANYTHING; most work in the U.S. today is done with an "at will" agreement: either side can terminate the relationship with no warning at all.
There are certain jobs (military, sensitive government posts, contractual employment) for which this might not be possible due to breach of contract.
I think it's wonderful what happened: Sony got greedy, Sony did something incredibly stupid, Sony got busted, Sony's getting sued, Sony's music consumers that were abused will get compensated. All in all, I think Sony's going to be left with a very, very black eye and people will be wary of buying anything from Sony.
I think it's brought to the consumers' attention that the RIAA members are Very Bad People, who only want to steal money from artists and build profits on the backs of those artists that rival the recent oil companies' profits from their illegal activities.
All that having been said: does anyone think that this MIGHT HAVE BEEN intentional? Think of it this way: Now, anyone who buys a Sony CD will think, "Hmm, well, it's safe to play in my CD player, just not on my computer. That isn't such a bad thing anyway, so I'll go ahead and buy it anyway." Who buys CD's just so they can rip the tracks to they can go distribute them on some p2p network?
This article on Yahoo! says DRM is doomed. FTA: "The fact that so-called digital rights management might always be a doomed experiment became painfully clear with the fiasco that erupted after Sony BMG Music Entertainment added a technology known as XCP to more than 50 popular CDs."
Let's hope. I always thought this was stupid. I bought the CD. The concept of fair use says I should be able to listen to it when, where and how I want. Fussing about people trading music just goes to show how badly the music industry knows it's wrong and that it's been screwing artists since the beginning. They're not treating their artists nor their customers well.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't say they're the same.
However, it's "Bourne Again SHell."
That was my first thought, too.
It's quite possible this will work for a while, but shortly after complaints start coming in ("Hey, how'd THAT guy get PORN on his computer up here!?!?! I can't get MY porn!! I WANT MY PORN!!!", or some such nonsense) they'll start filtering for protocols, not just ports or URLs.
No SSH protocol, not even if it's tunneled in something else.
They might allow secure connections to only certain websites, e.g. the airlines, the Sky Mall, etc.
It's their network, and they're going to work hard to protect themselves and their image.
Sucks to be us.
You are the wind beneath my wings...
Well, I suppose the only good thing that's come out of this is that now 2 more liberals have me on their foes list. :)
OK, so first guy says something inflammatory, gives no facts to support his point.
Second guy asks for elaboration.
Due to its nature (contains no facts, only inflammatory remarks), he's already proven he CAN'T elaborate.
My post was simply telling guy #2 that the guy CAN'T back up his statements, because there's simply no proof to be given: how does one prove an opinion?
Funny how you responded to what I said, but not to what the other guy said about being the reason the country is fucked up.
He offered no proof to support his conclusions. Why didn't you say anything about his comment? Is it because you think his conclusions are correct, based on no provided evidence in his statement?
How do you think product development is done? By telling your competition what you're going to do by when?
Should we have developed the nuclear bomb out in the open, so that the Germans could have done it at the same time and used it on Britain, Russia and the U.S.?
No, because he's a knee jerk liberal.
They don't NEED a reason; they just "feel" like it...
Anyone care to put up a copy of the pic elsewhere?
Preferably with a better connection to the internet than a string phone...
Al Gore needs money for a presidential bid in '08, so this is really quite convenient!
You put into words what I was thinking very well.
The intent of the individual involved was clear, so I'm wondering what difference it makes if he'd used a telephone, instant message, email, or IRC.
It was a woman, not a man, on the bench who issued this order.
You mean like when Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky?
Yeah, that would've been refreshing...
It'll never make it to a Free Speech test.
The families of those who died in the massacre will sue in some court because of its exploitative nature.
Only a really, *really* incompetent idiot would write such a server which blocked until the read was finished.
This sounds like a veiled reference to something; would you care to name it?
Oh, I guess you didn't get the rest of my post :-)
The PR folks probably knew EXACTLY what was going on. I think they probably DID release those false/misleading statistics purposefully.
What makes it worse is that Microsoft knows full well that this data is false, and still uses this in its FUD attacks against Linux/Open Source.
Well... maybe. It's quite possible that the two sub-organizations aren't communicating very well. If that's the case, then they need to do something about it.
I don't really care for Microsoft, neither the company nor their software. But let's not get all paranoid and just jump to the conclusion that they're deliberately trying to mislead us.
Oh, crap, what the hell am I saying?
Of COURSE they're lying to us! Of course they know that they are deliberately misleading people with false statistics because they know that their business model is under attack!
Sorry about that, kids. We now return you to your regular broadcast.
No, I don't, I work for a private company that makes our own embedded hardware and software. I'm as anti-Micro$oft as you can get.
Buying one copy of a piece of software and then installing it on several machines is stealing. It's not copyright infringement. It's stealing.
To whatever idiot made the RIAA comment: I thikn they're wrong too. If you buy a piece of music, you should be able to do whatever the hell you want with it for YOURSELF. (Movies, too.) But making 100 copies of a CD and giving it to your friends is wrong, also.
Some of you folks need to get it out of your heads that if technology makes something possible, well, then, it must be ok to do it! Nope, life doesn't work that way.
I am serious. School districts who are stealing software are stealing.
As for Ernie Ball, ignorance got him. I didn't notice if the article mentioned who turned him in, but that's not important for this discussion.
I'm glad there's someone to make them legal.
As for showing them the finger, if they have probable cause, they'll come with the law. Showing them the finger may get them away long enough that you can get them away, but they'll be back with a warrant quicker than you can buy & install legal copies.
I don't see why any of this is a big deal.
"So what? Who cares?"
So what? Who cares? Why is the BSA such a bad thing, unless you're into stealing software?
Back in the day, DEC VAX/VMS was given a high rating in the Orange book.
It got an even higher one without networking.
I'm not sure what you mean by "legally entitled."
You're legally entitled to leave without ANY notice. You can walk into your boss's office, say "I'm outta here as of right now!" and be done with it. All they owe you for is any work you have done since the last pay period. No more, no less. And you don't "owe" them ANYTHING; most work in the U.S. today is done with an "at will" agreement: either side can terminate the relationship with no warning at all.
There are certain jobs (military, sensitive government posts, contractual employment) for which this might not be possible due to breach of contract.
That does seem to be more appropriate than Digital Rights Management, doesn't it, given that there are very few rights involved...
Hmmm, maybe my comment was misinterpreted.
I think it's wonderful what happened: Sony got greedy, Sony did something incredibly stupid, Sony got busted, Sony's getting sued, Sony's music consumers that were abused will get compensated. All in all, I think Sony's going to be left with a very, very black eye and people will be wary of buying anything from Sony.
I think it's brought to the consumers' attention that the RIAA members are Very Bad People, who only want to steal money from artists and build profits on the backs of those artists that rival the recent oil companies' profits from their illegal activities.
All that having been said: does anyone think that this MIGHT HAVE BEEN intentional? Think of it this way: Now, anyone who buys a Sony CD will think, "Hmm, well, it's safe to play in my CD player, just not on my computer. That isn't such a bad thing anyway, so I'll go ahead and buy it anyway." Who buys CD's just so they can rip the tracks to they can go distribute them on some p2p network?
This article on Yahoo! says DRM is doomed. FTA: "The fact that so-called digital rights management might always be a doomed experiment became painfully clear with the fiasco that erupted after Sony BMG Music Entertainment added a technology known as XCP to more than 50 popular CDs."
Let's hope. I always thought this was stupid. I bought the CD. The concept of fair use says I should be able to listen to it when, where and how I want. Fussing about people trading music just goes to show how badly the music industry knows it's wrong and that it's been screwing artists since the beginning. They're not treating their artists nor their customers well.